posted at 2:01 pm on April 29, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

If this isn’t a smoking gun on Benghazi, at least on the controversy over the talking points that blamed a YouTube video rather than the terrorists who plotted and then conducted the attack, then it’s not clear what would qualify. Judicial Watch forced the release of additional White House e-mails relating to the evolution of the talking points and finds a rather bald-faced admission of Obama administration interests in Susan Rice’s television appearances the following Sunday. The YouTube story was designed to distract from “policy failures,” according to Barack Obama’s aide Ben Rhodes:

Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” a possible kidnap attempt.

The documents were released Friday as result of a June 21, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Department of State (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00951)) to gain access to documents about the controversial talking points used by then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice for a series of appearances on television Sunday news programs on September 16, 2012. Judicial Watch had been seeking these documents since October 18, 2012.

The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.

The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

Rhodes returns to the “Internet video” scenario later in the email, the first point in a section labeled “Top-lines”:

[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.

Among the top administration PR personnel who received the Rhodes memo were White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli Ledbetter, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist Davie Plouffe.

That’s a rather extensive distribution list, and that prompts another question:

A question that will go unasked by the media: why are we only seeing this White House Benghazi email now?

Didn’t the White House insist that they’d offered complete transparency to Congress and the public on the talking points? It was just eleven months ago that the White House claimed to have released their whole archive on the development of those talking points and accused the GOP of “doctoring” them to make their critical response look political. The Washington Post gave White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer three Pinocchios for that claim. Hopefully, Glenn Kessler has a few more Pinocchios in reserve, now that this bombshell has hit.

It’s possible to read this as an extension of a sincere belief that the video caused a riot which led to the attack. By the time this e-mail was written, there was plenty of evidence — even in the e-mail chain itself — to show that wasn’t the case, but let’s say for argument’s sake that Rhodes actually thought this argument was valid. The flip side of it is that, since it wasn’t an ad-hoc demonstration that turned into a riot, the takeaway should be that this was the result of “a broader failure or policy” from the Obama administration. Right?

Update: Fixed a couple of typos, thanks to an e-mail from the indispensable Jeryl Bier. (Took a couple of tries, though.)

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.

But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.

Maddening that the real story– which everyone figured out within a couple of months, weeks, days, of the event– has to be dragged out of this administration by dribs and drabs, email by email, over the course of years. I suppose we should be thankful that any investigation continues at all, even if only under the direction of Captain Obvious.

The “smoking gun” has been cleaned and put back in the holster, just like the Fast and Furious, NSA, IRS, etc., smoking guns.
Hey, but punish Sterling for racial comments…
so much more important than the murders of our people in Benghazi and involved in Fast and Furious.

By the time this e-mail was written, there was plenty of evidence — even in the e-mail chain itself — to show that wasn’t the case, but let’s say for argument’s sake that Rhoades actually thought this argument was valid. The flip side of it is that, since it wasn’t an ad-hoc demonstration that turned into a riot, the takeaway should be that this was the result of “a broader failure or policy” from the Obama administration. Right?

It’s interesting, but I refuse — not even for the sake of argument. :) It just helps give that fiction cover.

Is the sap who made the video “blamed” for Benghazi still Barky and sleazy Eric Holder’s political prisoner?

viking01 on April 29, 2014 at 2:09 PM

No he knowingly violated his Parole from previous convictions and went ahead and made the video anyway. He did it to himself and he gets no sympathy from me, but he was a handy tool to be used and abused by the Administration and Obama did just that.

It’s possible to read this as an extension of a sincere belief that the video caused a riot which led to the attack.

Just a reminder, On September 25th the rat-eared wonder made a speech at the UN………..

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

In this modern world, with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us if that’s how we respond.

Are we to believe that there was still a sincere belief about that video on September 25th or was the rat-eared wonder lying his ass off (again).

Am I the only one thinking that this is the beginning of the end of free speech? What Sterling said was wrong but now people are being fined and punished for secretly recorded tapes (see HA Kareem thread)?

What Sterling said was wrong but now people are being fined and punished for secretly recorded tapes (see HA Kareem thread)?

31giddyup on April 29, 2014 at 2:39 PM

This ban was a business decision. No matter how those tapes (that was Stirling speaking) became public, the fact of the matter is that the NBA had to do something significant for business reasons- especially when the NBA workforce is overwhelmingly black.

The legalities of the tape is an issue that is apt to be litigated at some other time. Nevertheless, the NBA had to act to protect their brand.

isn’t this major news? or is it only news worthy if it’s a republican in office? other than hotair or the select few other righty web sites, this story will not even get mentioned. were fighting a losing battle, our microphones are just not loud or big enough.

the video was shown in cairo (after never being watched by anyone really) and MAY have been involved in that protest, but I suspect it was just shown and used as an excuse to protest. IOW it was a planned scapegoat by the people in cairo.
benghazi happened after cairo. I have never seen anything showing the video had any impact there.

“To underscore that these protests were rooted in an internet video“ eh-hem, except nobody actually in Benghazi said there was a video-protest, just a coordinated assault with mortars, grenade launchers and assault weapons… WTF

Some good refresher on the issues with those emails. Remember Jonathan Karl with ABC getting torn to shreds because he had the emails quoted to him verbatim since they weren’t allowed to have copies last May and supposedly made a mistake in transcription from his source? Same evening as this new email. We should have seen these last year.

Because Obama has been safely re-elected, so “what difference, at this point, does it make?“

AZCoyote on April 29, 2014 at 2:49 PM

The attacks on the civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America. We are grateful for the assistance we received from the Libyan government and from the Libyan people.

There should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice.
– Barak Obama, September 25th, UN Speech

At least that should be the reason why it still makes a difference.

But, sadly with this administration, a dead border agent, ambassador, or soldier really doesn’t matter. The dead are either political problems to ignore or (like the tiny pile of Sandy Hook victims) political opportunity.

Next up, I’m sure it will be revealed that there was indeed a smidgen of wrongdoing within the IRS.

No matter how those tapes (that was Stirling speaking) became public, the fact of the matter is that the NBA had to do something significant for business reasons- especially when the NBA workforce is overwhelmingly black.

I understand what you are saying Nomad and thanks. However if you take away four words in that sentence you can fill them with what ever organization (religious, political, business, etc…) or race.

Example:

No matter how those tapes (that was Stirling speaking) became public, the fact of the matter is that the ____ had to do something significant for ______ reasons- especially when the ____workforce is overwhelmingly ____.

Benghazi was always a terrorist stronghold going way back to supplying terrorists to Iraq and my question is why did we butt into Libya,oh ya it was to prevent Benghazi from being destroyed. Obama is a supporter of terrorists I guess.

Am I the only one thinking that this is the beginning of the end of free speech? What Sterling said was wrong but now people are being fined and punished for secretly recorded tapes (see HA Kareem thread)?

31giddyup on April 29, 2014 at 2:39 PM

Brendan Eich will be surprised to learn that free speech only began to end now.

In reality, what we have is the old East German system, where for the most part the public was kept in cowardly silence not though any prison sentences or violent acts, but simply because saying the wrong thing could cost you your job and make you nearly unemployable in anything but a menial role.

That same system terrorizes us into lies of lives on every issue from the threat of Islam to race to gender to the gay agenda.

We are not free. We just have cultural Marxist dogmas to recite on pain of losing our jobs, instead of straight Marxist dogmas.

Couple O’ Things:
1. 4 men were murdered with no effort what-so-ever from the White House to assit those men. The White House has those men’s blood on their hands as well as the HUNDREDS from F & F!
2. Why the Frack (only not Frack) is this thread being hijacked by a fricking NBA Basketball team? I’m not into basketbal, but I do know the mentality of rich folks. What I have learned is the more money they have the more they think that rulesa and laws don’t apply to them. I marvel at the shock when they realize that rules and laws DO apply to them too. Also, that just because they have lots of money does not mean they are a billion dollars worth of smart. They can be worth billions, and still have a ten cent brain. Lastly, the more money they have, the higher they will go. Beautiful women, fast cars, big houses, etc. They just have further to fall.
3. I have great respect for Congressman Issa. That said, I have to question the competence of the congressional “Investigators.” How is it that a news blog can get this infromation but not congress? If I was Issa I would be pissed…

If memory serves, Obama jetted off on some fund raiser in Harry Reid land, went to bed and was “unavailable” at the time that our Seals and our Ambassador were raped, murdered and dragged through the streets of Benghazi.